When the Palin mom announced her preggo teenage daughter would be marrying her baby's daddy, I thought 'yeah right. NOT!' because I knew it was all a ploy to make those hypocritical christian sexually-abstinent fanatics called the Palins look marginally better from left of right.

Now that momma Palin has no hope of becoming VP this time around and the baby has been born, Bristol dumped the guy who 'likes to shoot up sh*t' and 'doesn't want any kids.'

If McCain had won and Palin became VP (**shudders**), do you think she would have forced a marriage between Bristol and Levi? Or would she have allowed them a long engagement just to impress the media critics and allowed them NOT to eventually get married?

Methinks Bristol was strongly encouraged to break up with him, since the Johnston family was not exactly Sarah Palin's dream come true. It's not going to help her future political career to be associated in any way with high-school dropouts or meth heads.

pretty much my reaction...if it was sarah palin's daughter, no one would care...why should we care now?

Originally Posted by CurlyEyes

It's not so much that we care. We're just enjoying the irony. You shove unprepared teenagers into a shotgun wedding (or, rather, an engagement) they clearly don't want, then you proceed to sell said teenagers out in the media to further your political agenda...well, don't be surprised when the relationship fails.

pretty much my reaction...if it was sarah palin's daughter, no one would care...why should we care now?

And I wasn't nearly as overjoyed as you seem to be; I feel bad that a girl not much older than me has to raise a baby without a father.

Originally Posted by CurlyEyes

If she was a regular single, teen mom, I'd feel sorry for her and the baby. I just don't ever see Bristol struggling or having to worry how she'll pay for little Tripp's next meal. As long as pit bull grandma Palin is involved that kid won't need a thing.

Location: Chicago

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"If you don't stand for something you will fall for anything."
— Malcolm X

Fox News did an interview with Bristol about a month ago. It was painfully obvious that she wanted to say that she supports prophylactic use, or that she disagrees with abstinence only. She really struggled to stick to the party line, but she did say something to the effect that teens will have sex despite abstinence-only education.

pretty much my reaction...if it was sarah palin's daughter, no one would care...why should we care now?

Originally Posted by CurlyEyes

It's not so much that we care. We're just enjoying the irony. You shove unprepared teenagers into a shotgun wedding (or, rather, an engagement) they clearly don't want, then you proceed to sell said teenagers out in the media to further your political agenda...well, don't be surprised when the relationship fails.

Originally Posted by battinlash

While I'm always sorry to see a family breaking up, I'm enjoying Palin's position on "abstinence only" working out exactly as it usually does...knocked up and broken up. It's a perfect example of why we should teach real sex education to America's children.

pretty much my reaction...if it was sarah palin's daughter, no one would care...why should we care now?

And I wasn't nearly as overjoyed as you seem to be; I feel bad that a girl not much older than me has to raise a baby without a father.

Originally Posted by CurlyEyes

I, agree. It doesn't matter that the family has money to support the child. I don't like Palin either, but I don't like the fact that a child will possibly suffer "emotionally." When I say child I mean the Mother & baby. Are we so caught up with not liking Palin, that we are happy about this situation?

From Michael Berg:

Every person has a unique connection to the Creator that can never be extinguished, and every person has a great soul that can manifest important things in our world. To make a person feel less than they are because of something inside themselves, be it faith, race, or sexual orientation, is the greatest sin of all."